Comment from an evangelical presbyterian perspective and an orthodox confessionally reformed outlook.

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Pro-Smacking
Fundamentalism

The
online propaganda sheet for secularism, rabid Scottish nationalism, LGBTism etc,
the Herald, has sunk to new depths with its headline, “Revealed: Pro-smacking
lobbyists funded by Christian fundamentalists.”

In
its “exclusive” revelation it uncovers the fact that Christians are against
criminalising loving parents who occasionally physically chastise their children. Shock, horror, outrage!

The
language is interesting, It speaks of the “pro-smacking” lobby and does not
call them the “anti-criminalisation of parents” lobby. This gives the impression that Christians
spend their energy thinking of ways to abuse their children and traumatise them
by physical punishment and should be defined as pro-smackers. Of course when it comes to a similar issue,
say the protection of unborn lives, the Herald will not speak of the “pro-life”
movement, but use derogatory terms such as anti-abortion of anti-choice.

Then
again, why speak of "Christian opposition" when you can bring in the catch all scare
word, “fundamentalist. It seems that anyone now who is a Bible believing
Christian is a “fundamentalist”. (This
in contrast to the acceptable face of Christianity seen in the Church of
Scotland which is anti-smacking, pro-gay, and most definitely not Bible
thumping – good liberal values acceptable to the secular mafia)

Of
course, if you can castigate these fundamentalists, such as the Christian
Institute, as also showing their rabid fanaticism in opposing the draconian
State Named Person legislation - which seeks to appoint a state guardian for
every child in Scotland who will determining if the child’s well-being is being
furthered or hindered by parental care, instruction and example - so much the
better. You see these pro-smackers are
also anti-child protection, the very essence of evil, or so the Herald would
have us believe.

Any
opposition to the SNP’s support of criminalising loving parents is ipso facto
proof that the opponents are fundamentalists, who are daring to do the
unimaginable, namely, argue from the Bible as well as argue from common sense,
history and the consensus of popular opinion.
The gay marriage activist and anti Christian Green MSP, John Finnie, is
quoted as being very concerned with the view that
there may be a “theological basis” to arguments against a smacking ban. It
seems you are not permitted to argue from theological premises, but it is
perfectly acceptable to do so from anti-theological or atheistic premises.

This
is why Christian commentators who say that this is not an issue that the Church
should campaign on are mistaken. It is
simply yet another club that atheistic secularism will use to beat Christian
parents. If this passes, (and due to the
duplicity of the SNP who have renegaded on previous assurances that they will
not legislate on this matter but now support the Bill, it will pass), it does
not take a soothsayer to prophesy that among the first to be target will be
Christian parents. Just as the gays have
not targeted Muslim bakers, photographers and printers, so the secularists will
focus their anti-smacking enforcement on Christian families.

I
can imagine a Named Person, already appalled that little Johny’s parents have dared
to teach him that in God’s eyes marriage can only be between a man and a woman,
that homosexual conduct is sin and that we cannot change our gender just
because it feels right, interrogating the helpless child and asking, “Has Mummy
or Daddy ever smacked you or in any way threatened your well-being by sending
you to the naught-step or temporarily withdrawing TV privileges?” By coaxing
the hapless child to incriminate parents the secular State enforcement machine
will take another step in the battle against the destructive influence of
Christianity.

Write
to your local and regional MSP to express your opposition to this proposed legislation,
pray against it individually and corporately and STOP BUYING THE HERALD!

Thursday, 26 October 2017

Following on from my commendation in the last posting on the Ten
Commandments, I read this amusing anecdote concerning the Rev William B Robertson, (1820 – 1886), who
was minister of the United Presbyterian Congregation in Irvine, (1843 – 1886):

“During his whole
ministry Dr. Robertson took a warm interest in the devout expression of the public
worship of the Presbyterian Church. He had no sympathy with the idea of
ministers being required to follow a prescribed liturg ; but, on the other hand,
he was often pained by the slovenly manner in which the various parts of public
worship were conducted. From time to time he introduced minor changes into the
forms of the service in his
own church, as he found that the people became willing to acquiesce in them. A
lady who was connected with another congregation in Irvine said to him one day
: " I hear that you are introducing some dreadful innovations into your
church service." "Indeed," he replied ; "what innovations?"
"Oh," she said, "I am told that you read the Ten Commandments at
the communion table." "Is that all you have heard of? " he
rejoined ; " We have introduced a far greater innovation than that." "What
is it ? " asked the good lady somewhat anxiously. "We try to keep
them," was his reply.”

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Displaying the Commandments

One
of my introductory remarks was on the general ignorance of the ten commandments
in society at large and in the church in particular. I mentioned that I had
never ever seen the commandments displayed in any church, and there was a kind
response from one older member who told me that in some Church of England
congregations the commandments were displayed on a plaque at the entrance to
the church. A quick Google image search
confirmed this, with some rather imposing examples.

So,
why should we not display the Ten Commandments somewhere in our church
facilities. I can already hear the
counter argument, “Why the Ten Commanments; why not the Beatitutes, or the Lord’s
prayer, or 1 Corintians 13 on Love?”

This
is not an either or situation. There are
many possible biblical passages to display and perhaps a rotating display where
the posters were changed monthly might be appropriate. However, I still think there is a valid
argument for a permanent display of the Ten Commandments.

They
need not be engraved in stone. Modern technology
allows us to print them off, our local high street print shops can expand them
in full colour A3 poster size for next to nothing, and you can buy a nice A3
poster frame on Amazon.

Of
course, we can also re-introduce the reading of the Law back into our worship,
and this site provides a number of examples of responsive readings.

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Occasionally, in place of the
Reading of the Law before the Prayer of Confession, it would be appropriate to
use the Beatitudes. Indeed, it would be
possible to frame the prayer of confession on the basis of the Beatitudes. I recently read in a 19th century
American Episcopalian work on the revision of their liturgy a reference to the
Beatitudes with responses based on Psalm 51, (which the writer thought was
rather artificial), but have not been able to trace this,.

These responses, based on the
Psalms are appropriate. I have edited
them from some suggestions in:

About Me

With degrees in both philosophy and theology, I have lived and worked in the UK, West Africa (working in theological education) and the USA. As a Teaching Elder I served for 19 years in the Church of Scotland and 4 years in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (USA). I am a minister of the Free Church of Scotland, and a member in St Andrews Free Church, Fife.

I am married to my wonderful wife Aileen, who has supported and moulded me over 40 years of marriage - an ongoing project that may yet pay dividends, although it requires great patience on her part.